Europe declares independence from Hollywood with ACTA vote

Decisive rejection by European Parliament means the treaty is effectively dead

The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The vote blocks the treaty from taking effect in EU member states, and is likely to make the treaty a dead letter around the world.

European and American officials have long insisted that ratifying ACTA would not require any substantive changes to European or US laws. Indeed, when President Obama signed ACTA in October, he argued that, because ACTA does not change US law, he could call it an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty, thereby bypassing the Senate ratification process.

The European Parliament's rejection of ACTA, by a vote of 478 to 39, leaves that strategy in shambles. It will be hard for the United States to argue that ACTA represents an international standard after the treaty was defeated so decisively across the pond.

ACTA's implosion

ACTA's future in Europe has been in doubt since early this year, when activists in Poland and elsewhere took to the streets against the treaty. Countries began backing away from the agreement, and severalcommittees of the EU parliament voted against its ratification.

Hoping that a favorable ruling would bolster support, the European Commission asked the European Court of Justice to weigh in on the rules. But the European Parliament pushed forward with its own vote without waiting for the ECJ's ruling.

On Wednesday, EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht pledged to continue the proceeding before the ECJ despite the Parliament's vote.

"Today's rejection does not change the fact that the European Commission has committed itself to seeking answers to the questions raised by the European public," he said, according to the BBC. "The European Commission will continue to seek the legal opinion of the European Court of Justice on whether this agreement harms any of the fundamental rights of European citizens—including freedom of speech."

"Virtually unthinkable"

In a blog post, Canadian law professor Michael Geist called it a "remarkable development that was virtually unthinkable even a year ago." He argued that the growing opposition to ACTA in Europe has had "ripple effects" in Australia and elsewhere.

He noted that ACTA could still technically come into force if six countries ratify it. But, he said, the agreement is now "badly damaged and will seemingly never achieve the goals of its supporters as a model for other countries to adopt."

ACTA opponents hailed the vote. "Access is ecstatic that the Parliament today, by an overwhelming majority, said 'No' to ACTA, delivering the long-awaited fatal blow to this dangerous agreement," said Mike Rispoli of the activist group Access.

Another opponent, UK Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye agreed. "The European Parliament vote is a triumph of democracy over special interests and shady back-room deals," he told the BBC. "It is becoming increasingly politically poisonous to be 'anti-Internet.'"

Before celebrating, let's not forget that the european parliament has no real legislative powers. DeGucht said beforehand that he would continue the examination/approval process of ACTA.

The European parliament has no real legislative powers. It cannot propose laws (only the Commission can), it cannot approve them (only the Conseil de l'Europe can), and if it wants to amend a law, the amendment must be accepted by the Commission or voted unanimously... by the Conseil.

The only power the Parliament has is that it can censor the Commission, and has to approve any new Commission. It's like a country that has no military, only a Tsar Bomba. The Commission (DeGucht, mainly) can try to keep ACTA rolling if it thinks the parliament will not resort to censure over "such a small technical matter".

Now, I'm not saying the Commission will do so. Just that it could, and maybe get away with it.

The European parliament has no real legislative powers. It cannot propose laws (only the Commission can), it cannot approve them (only the Conseil de l'Europe can), and if it wants to amend a law, the amendment must be accepted by the Commission or voted unanimously... by the Conseil.

Quote:

The Commission submits a legislative proposal to the Parliament and Council. At the first reading Parliament adopts its position. If the Council approves the Parliament's wording then the act is adopted. If not, it shall adopt its own position and pass it back to Parliament with explanations. The Commission also informs Parliament of its position on the matter. At the second reading, the act is adopted if Parliament approves the Council's text or fails to take a decision. The Parliament may reject the Council's text, leading to a failure of the law, or modify it and pass it back to the Council

"So why did he sign a treaty if it does nothing more than maintain the status quo? The point seems to have been to establish US- and EU-style copyright laws as a global standard, and then use that to pressure less-developed nations to beef up their copyright laws."

I disagree. I think the real point of ACTA always was to make it easier to prosecute Europeans (and other foreign citizens) under US copyright law. That's why your (not mine, I'm form the old country) alpha male was so eager to sign this. It's always been a bit of a pain for him and the boyz that US law just applies to, well, the US. Just imagine how much easier it would be to raid mansions and arrest Kiwis or have Brits extradited to the Land of the Free if US law just applied to the entire world.

Before celebrating, let's not forget that the european parliament has no real legislative powers. DeGucht said beforehand that he would continue the examination/approval process of ACTA.

The European parliament has no real legislative powers. It cannot propose laws (only the Commission can), it cannot approve them (only the Conseil de l'Europe can), and if it wants to amend a law, the amendment must be accepted by the Commission or voted unanimously... by the Conseil.

The only power the Parliament has is that it can censor the Commission, and has to approve any new Commission. It's like a country that has no military, only a Tsar Bomba. The Commission (DeGucht, mainly) can try to keep ACTA rolling if it thinks the parliament will not resort to censure over "such a small technical matter".

Now, I'm not saying the Commission will do so. Just that it could, and maybe get away with it.

What part of ACTA cannot now become law in the EU due to the EU Parliments rejection vote, don't you understand?

Can they really be independent if they're still consuming Hollywood (and others) content?

Yep. Because now they can consume it any which way they like with no strings attached (for the purposes of this treaty). What's Hollywood gonna do? Not sell their content to Europeans? Big content love their copyright. But they love their money even more.

Indeed, when President Obama signed ACTA in October, he argued that, because ACTA does not change US law, he could call it an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty, thereby bypassing the Senate ratification process.

So why did he sign a treaty if it does nothing more than maintain the status quo? The point seems to have been to establish US- and EU-style copyright laws as a global standard, and then use that to pressure less-developed nations to beef up their copyright laws.

The reason Obama said what he said wasn't so complicated. It's a very common strategy of his. He has something he wants to do, and the whole checks-and-balances thing is a drag. He'd prefer it if he could just get an idea and make it law. So he figures out what he needs to say that would give him the excuse to act unilaterally. And that's all he's doing here. Note the recent Supreme Court ruling on health care. The Supreme Court has basically said that he only had the power to enact the new health care rules if you considered it a tax. Meaning he didn't have the power to do it on a lesser basis. And yet, he continues blithely to insist it's not a tax.

Hollywood has been releasing some films in theaters in Europe before releasing them in the US. In some fashion I think they've already found their solution to extracting more cash out of the pockets of Europeans.

Personally I wait till it comes out on disk or shows up on Netflix or Hulu. I'll even go to a RedBox. Watching films in a theater is an expensive pain in the back pocket.

In some respects I think the movie pirates are doing me a favor. I suspect that a lot of films get released for rental sooner because the producer or distributor is greedy and wants to get his money now before the pirates eat into his bottom line. That seems to be especially true on family films and those films that do only moderately well in the theaters.

Of course the absolute losers pop-out on disk almost before the film closes! Battleship ought to be hitting the shelves any day now. (No I haven't seen it other than previews/trailers. Looks like a rehash of a rehash of every other Hollow-wood sci-fi epic. We need more explosions!!!!)

Before you guys flip out about being off-topic....movies are exactly what ACTA is about.Its payback time from Obama to the Hollow-wood people that supported him and will probably will again this fall. It's purely political bulls***.

Can they really be independent if they're still consuming Hollywood (and others) content?

Yep. Because now they can consume it any which way they like with no strings attached (for the purposes of this treaty). What's Hollywood gonna do? Not sell their content to Europeans? Big content love their copyright. But they love their money even more.

EU Parliament will just vote no the next time too if the commission wastes its time trying to "clarify" a rejected treaty that cannot be altered. The ECJ ruling is not that applicable since it's only narrowly examines if ACTA would break any of the EU rights laws.

Can they really be independent if they're still consuming Hollywood (and others) content?

Yep. Because now they can consume it any which way they like with no strings attached (for the purposes of this treaty). What's Hollywood gonna do? Not sell their content to Europeans? Big content love their copyright. But they love their money even more.

Can they really be independent if they're still consuming Hollywood (and others) content?

Yep. Because now they can consume it any which way they like with no strings attached (for the purposes of this treaty). What's Hollywood gonna do? Not sell their content to Europeans? Big content love their copyright. But they love their money even more.

Then they're not really independent are they?

From what? Hollywood's attempt to impose ACTA on them? Well according to the article - yes. Yes they are. At least for now. If you are instead implying independence from Hollywood content (for the purposes of consumption) - well that's a whole 'nother topic.

Movies truly aren't made for free. BUT Hollywood is taking too many wrong decisions about their content. They take too long to release them on BluRay or internet. Streaming premium content must have a premium price as well (this is why Netflix doesn't have premium content, they would have to charge extra from their customers, but they want to keep the subscription fee only).

I am not really sure how bad rejecting ACTA will be for Hollywood. But Hollywood isn't currently giving us, customers, much support either.

You can be sure that the ones that "abstained" wanted to vote yes but didn't want to deal with the political fallout. All Swedish representatives that abstained are well known supporters of it (not that ones that voted no are much better but they realised that it was bad for their political careers).

Public pressure worked for a change and that is great. On the other hand chances of EC giving up on this fascist stuff is zero.

I disagree. I think the real point of ACTA always was to make it easier to prosecute Europeans (and other foreign citizens) under US copyright law. That's why your (not mine, I'm form the old country) alpha male was so eager to sign this. It's always been a bit of a pain for him and the boyz that US law just applies to, well, the US. Just imagine how much easier it would be to raid mansions and arrest Kiwis or have Brits extradited to the Land of the Free if US law just applied to the entire world.

Nonsense, we have perfectly good (if you are a content maker) copyright laws in Europe, in Germany those that download without permission are regularly fined, France has a 3 strikes law and the UK will soon so where you get the idiocy that copyright enforcement is somehow limited to the US is beyond me.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.